Mannings Organisation Limited & Anor v Joseph Henry Manning

Mannings Organisation Limited & Anor v Joseph Henry Manning

The court found that there was a serious issue to be tried as to whether the defendant's conduct amounted to harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, that damages would not be an adequate remedy, and the balance of convenience favoured continuation of the injunction. The application was not precautionary relief but sought to restrain a continuing course of conduct. The defendant was not deliberately excluded from the without notice hearing, and there was no material non-disclosure. Therefore, paragraphs 3 and a revised 4 of the injunction would continue until judgment or further order, and the discharge application was dismissed.

Parties
Claimant: Mannings Organisation Limited; Claimant: Mannings Amusements Limited; Defendant: Joseph Henry Manning
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 May 2026
Procedural Posture
Civil Injunction and Discharge Application / Interlocutory Application for Continuation/discharge of Interim Injunction
Outcome
Interim injunction continued in part; discharge application dismissed
Legal Topics
Interim Injunctions, Harassment, Family Business Disputes, Quia Timet Relief, Full and Frank Disclosure
Civil Procedure Tort Law Company Law Interim Injunctions Harassment Family Business Disputes Quia Timet Relief Full and Frank Disclosure

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mannings Organisation Limited

Claimant

Mannings Amusements Limited

Claimant

Joseph Henry Manning

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Injunction and Discharge Application / Interlocutory Application for Continuation/discharge of Interim Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the interim injunction restraining the defendant from certain conduct should be continued or discharged under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997
  2. 2 Whether the claimants satisfied the American Cyanamid test for interim relief
  3. 3 Whether the defendant was deliberately excluded from the without notice hearing and whether there was material non-disclosure

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that there was a serious issue to be tried as to whether the defendant's conduct amounted to harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, that damages would not be an adequate remedy, and the balance of convenience favoured continuation of the injunction. The application was not precautionary relief but sought to restrain a continuing course of conduct. The defendant was not deliberately excluded from the without notice hearing, and there was no material non-disclosure. Therefore, paragraphs 3 and a revised 4 of the injunction would continue until judgment or further order, and the discharge application was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Interim injunction continued in part; discharge application dismissed

Orders

  • Paragraph 3 and a revised paragraph 4 of the injunction to continue until judgment or further order
  • Discharge application by the defendant dismissed